Sayres v. Decker Auto. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1924 |
| Citation | 145 N.E. 744,239 N.Y. 73 |
| Parties | SAYRES v. DECKER AUTOMOBILE CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Perry Sayres against the Decker Automobile Company From judgment of the Appellate Division (206 App. Div. 812, 201 N. Y. S. 944) affirming a judgment of the Trial Court entered on verdict of jury for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and complaint dismissed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth department.
Thomas F. Rogers, of Corning, for appellant.
James O. Sebring, of Corning, for respondent.
In January, 1921, the plaintiff purchased of the defendant a used automobile for $1,300. He paid $800 in cash and gave a note for $500. He then applied to the Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company for a policy of insurance representing that he had paid for the car in question $1,765 and obtained a policy for that amount, the loss payable to himself and to the defendant. He says now that he had added to the price of the car $465 for improvements. When he comes to enumerate these additions, however, it becomes evident that this statement was far too optimistic. On July 22d in the same year the car was partially destroyed by fire and a few days later the note for $500 was paid.
At the time plaintiff was 19 years of age, but he seems to have been engaged in business as some reference is made to a truck owned by him, and apparently he was of normal intelligence. As to what occurred when he attempted to adjust the fire loss we take his own story. Proofs of loss were prepared and sworn to by him in which he stated that he had paid $1,765 for the car and he made a claim for that amount. Accompanying these proofs of loss was a statement by one Decker, the defendant's president, not sworn to, confirming the plaintiff in this regard. This is said Decker to have been signed by mistake. Thereupon an insurance adjuster called upon the plaintiff and demanded an original bill of sale. The plaintiff knew that he could not obtain his insurance until this bill of sale was secured, and he also seems to have known that if the true facts were stated he might get nothing. He had been warned by Decker that he could not collect, as things were, the $1,765. Apparently, too, When the note had been paid a bill of sale stating the price for which the car had been purchased as $1,300 had been given to the plaintiff by the defendant. So knowing that before he could collect his insurance a bill of sale was required showing that the purchase price was in fact $1,765, the plaintiff went to Decker and asked him to make out a bill of sale for that amount. Decker at first refused, saying that he had only received $1,300 and he was afraid to sign a false bill of sale. He finally consented to do so, however, if the plaintiff would pay him $430. That would make a total of $1,730, and the balance between that and $1,765 was represented by certain tires and accessories which the plaintiff had purchased. Decker promised that as soon as the insurance matter was settled he would return the $430 to the plaintiff.
Matters being so arranged, the plaintiff handed to Decker the $430 and received the fraudulent bill of sale. This he turned over to the company and as a result collected on the policy $1,175 and received the wrecked car which he sold, as he finally admits, for $400. He then demanded the $430 of Decker, but Decker replied that it did not belong to the plaintiff but to the insurance company, and to the company he finally paid it. This action to recover the sum in question resulted, based upon the contract to Decker to return it.
It is certain that Decker and the plaintiff entered into a conspiracy to defraud the insurance company. The object of the plaintiff was clear. He had committed perjury in making out his proofs of loss, and he must have known that if the insurance company discovered not only this perjury, but the misrepresentation in his application for the policyas to the amount paid for the car, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merchants' National Bank of Omaha v. Ayers
... ... Fed (2nd) 868. Where the object is to do an illegal act, ... the agreement is void, Sayres v. Decker, (N. Y.) 145 ... N.E. 744; McCormick v. Bank, 165 U.S. 638, and ... relieves a ... ...
-
Twiehaus v. Rosner
...to apportion as to the promises made and accepted, must fail. 6 Williston on Contracts [Rev. Ed.], Sec. 1780; Sayres v. Decker Automobile Co., 239 N.Y. 73, 77, 145 N.E. 744, 745; Foley et al. v. Speir et al., 100 N.Y. 552, 558, 3 N.E. 477, 'This left the parties in the position in which the......
-
Southwestern Shipping Corp. v. National City Bank of New York
...the 'repository' exception does not apply when the whole thing is one single transaction (see, for instance, Sayres v. Decker Automobile Co., 239 N.Y. 73, 77, 145 N.E. 744, 745). Surely, we should not be quick to extend such an exception and defeat a good old Although the point is not made ......
-
Stokes & Smith Co. v. Transparent-Wrap Mach. Corp.
...196 N.Y.S. 739, affirmed 236 N.Y. 516, 142 N.E. 265; Parthey v. Beyer, 228 App.Div. 308, 238 N.Y.S. 412 (semble) Sayres v. Decker Automobile Co., 239 N.Y. 73, 77, 145 N.E. 744, In Re Shannon's Estate, 289 Pa. St. 280, 137 A. 251. A different question arises as to restoration to the status q......
-
Markets as a Moral Foundation for Contract Law
...147, at 351 n.4 (noting that under English common law gaming contracts were generally enforceable). 233. See Sayres v. Decker Auto. Co., 145 N.E. 744, 745 (N.Y. 1924) (holding that a contract to give a false bill of sale in order to defraud a third party was not enforceable). 228 IOWA LAW R......